Comments for The Well of Questionshttps://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com
Truth is the water, wonder is the rope, endless is the abyss.Sat, 19 Sep 2015 22:51:11 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/Comment on Natural Consequences (5): Athanasius on the Law of Death by Yoshua Scribeshttps://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/natural-consequences-5-athanasius-on-the-law-of-death/#comment-1979
Sat, 19 Sep 2015 22:51:11 +0000http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/?p=522#comment-1979Hey Man, I love your Blog! So much to learn from it. Maybe we both know Perry on FB? I don’t know if I’ve interacted with you or not. Anyways, I’ve posted something similar on my own blog, though I take slightly different view on punishment. Though I’m in agreement with you, in regards to the emphasis being on natural consequence. But here is a snippet from my post on Original Sin. Maybe you can correct/comment about it? See if it’s the same etc

“Adam’s state of death was a consequence of his sin. Because it seperated him from the grace needed to keep him in that probationary state of immortality. From the moment he sinned, he began to die as an ontological consequence (“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked” Genesis 3:7). God, upon finding Adam in this state (“Who told you that you were naked?” Genesis 3:11) essentially says, “I warned you, and now this is what you get.” It’s a natural consequence, but God’s response to it, turns it into a punishment. If indeed he began to die immediately, before God even shows up to sentence him, then it is indeed a natural consequence (unless one wants to say that he had this grace even when he sinned). Point being that just because it is natural, does not mean it is not also a punishment. Since God actively works to let it play out (Genesis 3:22). So for Adam it’s not either/or it’s both/and. The order however is, natural consequence –> punishment. Kind of like if I waste all my money and I’m left in a dire state. Then my dad says “See I warned you this would happen, but I’m not bailing you out this time. You’re going to learn your lesson.”

We then inherit this fallen state and corruption. But are not being punished for what Adam did per se. If by punishment we are implying personal culpability. That is both denied by Ezekiel 18:20 and is metaphysically unfounded. However, when we sin, we do merit the consequences. And are deserving of them. That is why scripture says “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23).” Wages are merited. And we are merited only what we do. So unless one wants to advocate that we are merited the foreign guilt of Adam, it then it could be argued we are merited the foreign righteousness of Christ. And Luther was right.”

]]>Comment on Orthodox Christology, Gnosticism, and Gender Identity Disorders by Justinahttps://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/orthodox-christology-gnosticism-and-gender-identity-disorders/#comment-1930
Wed, 03 Jun 2015 21:11:51 +0000http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/?p=698#comment-1930I also think in this conversation, we need to dump the modern distinction between “gender” and “sex” the former being mental the latter physical.
]]>Comment on Orthodox Christology, Gnosticism, and Gender Identity Disorders by Justinahttps://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/orthodox-christology-gnosticism-and-gender-identity-disorders/#comment-1929
Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:04:13 +0000http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/?p=698#comment-1929it seems to me that when one is really both sexes, hermaphrodite, then one should either have an operation setting things one way or another, or (and all this should be AFTER puberty and a test on semen under the microscope as to whether it has sperm or not the menstruation being present at some point already), one can either be polygamous with a male and a female mate, or settle for one sex only partner of whichever category.

A lot of “gender identity” issues have to do with feelings reaction styles and interests and likes and dislikes that have nothing to do with gender outside of cultural assignment, and can be found in different centuries and locations assigned to different sexes than we are used to here, and of course those assigned to women devalued.

Transsexualism is a full sellout to patriarchal (male supremacist) sexism, and should never have been tolerated in the feminist movement. another sellout was letting lesbians to be a part of any feminist organization which fits the sexist stereotype, that women who like to do men stuff or not be limited to assigned roles are perverts. Finally, the modern feminist movement (as opposed to the original one that got us the vote, which was anti sexist and anti abortion and pro monogamous single standard, both sexes be chaste no double standard) being rooted in the peace movement, an unfortunate linkage between non warlikeness and femaleness (setting us for violent domination in the home in patriarchy) was made.

]]>Comment on Energetic Procession post: Prayers to Saints in the Pre-Nicene Era by demenagement martinhttps://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/prayers-to-saints-in-the-pre-nicene-era/#comment-1184
Wed, 21 May 2014 01:33:56 +0000http://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/?p=823#comment-1184I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was good.
I don’t know who you are but certainly you are going to a famous blogger if you aren’t already 😉 Cheers!
]]>Comment on Jerome on the Tri-fold Ministry by William Tighehttps://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/jerome-on-the-tri-fold-ministry/#comment-1112
Sat, 14 Dec 2013 19:35:29 +0000http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/?p=507#comment-1112I posted the following on “Energetic Processions” in November 2009; from this posting of yours I gather that you believe St. Jerome’s position on the matter to be similar, if not identical, to that of Theodore’s:

I cannot locate it at the present time, but Theodore of Mopsuestia’s views (expressed in a Commentary on the Epistles to Timothy and Titus) is that while the apostles were alive “episkopos” and “presbyter” denoted the same men holding the same office. When the apostles, he continues, began to appoint men as successors to *their own office and ministry* these men, deeming themselves to be unworthy of the title “apostolos” took for themselves the name “episkopos,” leaving the old “presbyter episkopoi” with the title of “presbyter.” I find this not without some problems, but far more plausible than what is taken to be St. Jerome’s view, that bishops evolved upwards from among the presbyters.

]]>Comment on Incarnation without the Fall in St. Irenaeus by Celalhttps://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/incarnation-without-the-fall-in-st-irenaeus/#comment-1107
Mon, 04 Feb 2013 22:46:12 +0000http://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/?p=737#comment-1107Your write “if God wills that the Logos exists” . I believe traditional trinitarianism is more like the way Berkhof states it in page 84 of his Systematic Theology : “And this tri-personal existence is a necessity of the Divine Being, and not in any sense a result of a choice of God.”
]]>Comment on Thesis Part III: ADS and Trinitarian Orthodoxy by Jon Andrew Greighttps://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/thesis-part-iii-ads-and-trinitarian-orthodoxy/#comment-1105
Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:29:48 +0000http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/?p=660#comment-1105Reading this in some form now, I really wish I had had a look over this blog at this stage of life I was in at my ever so prototypical Thomist school. Finding fodder for real philosophical ammunition. Anyway.
]]>Comment on Should We Change Belief-Systems? Part 2 by allzermalmerhttps://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/should-we-change-belief-systems-part-2/#comment-1104
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:47:11 +0000http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/?p=305#comment-1104“I think that we indeed should be suspicious of our metaphysical intuitions and of the answers to metaphysical questions that we come up with. If scientists’ theories are often provably mistaken despite seeming plausible, we should suspect the same about metaphysicians’ theories. I take this to be a matter of human fallibility rather than of any special failure of thought in metaphysics; the nontestability of metaphysical theories, however, does mean that false metaphysical theories will proliferate instead of being winnowed by experimental observation.”

If we accept what you think about “thinking carefully is expected to be evolutionarily favored and your argument against metaphysics, then you would not have much of a good reason to believe in scientific theories as well. And this is for the same reason as metaphysics, but just ever so slightly different.

You bring up the problem in how we have had many false scientific theories, which were testable, and this is suppose to imply that we found these things were false thanks to experience or experimentation. And, metaphysical theories cannot be tested to find out if they are false. But here becomes one problem, which is that having a test that a scientific hypothesis fails doesn’t mean that the scientific hypothesis itself is false, because we test our hypothesis in conjunction with other hypothesis. And when a test is failed, logic dictates that we don’t know where the problem is in our hypothesis that lead to the false test. It could either be the hypothesis in question or it could be one of the many other hypothesis tested in conjunction. The experiment and logic don’t show where the problem is. Thus, we could have discarded the true hypothesis a long time ago and built up false theories in it’s place.

And another problem, which you seemed to have hinted at, was that there could be many different metaphysical theories and only one is true and the rest are false. And as you pointed out, we can’t decide which one is false or how which one is false. But I pointed out that the same happens in science, when you can supposedly show which one is false. Another point would be that there are an infinity of logically different theories that can all account for the same finite set of data, and or consistent with all the data we could ever gather. Thus, we still wouldn’t be able to tell which scientific theory is true, and so are stuck in the metaphysical problem. And the reason why we’re stuck with this problem is that we can’t test them against experience, because we’ve already collected all the data of experience that we could have. Thus, it has the same problem you have with metaphysical positions. Thus, it looks like, science would be metaphysics as well. No way to test against different scientific hypothesis.

And I think this would also add some support to what the blog was about, but it also works against it. It’s actually indifferent, but seems to also be part of what the argument against naturalism was about, or at least from an evolutionary point of view. For we can also view that we evolved to have a certain trait which might help us get at the truth and good. However, this “trait” can express itself in many different ways. And each of these different ways would contradict the other, but yet the “trait” itself helps us succeed, but that doesn’t mean it’s getting at the truth or anything.

]]>Comment on Does reason matter? (1) by MGhttps://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/does-reason-matter-1/#comment-1101
Wed, 02 Nov 2011 23:38:04 +0000http://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/?p=728#comment-1101Also, the problem of the criteria is in some sense pre-dialectical. Question-begging does not enter into it, at least not in the manner of normal question-begging in the context of arguments.
]]>Comment on Does reason matter? (1) by MGhttps://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/does-reason-matter-1/#comment-1100
Wed, 02 Nov 2011 23:32:29 +0000http://thewellofquestions.wordpress.com/?p=728#comment-1100Jordan,

I don’t think so. I can understand the proposition “there are exactly ten trillion galaxies in this universe” without knowing whether it is true or false. Thus, to understand a proposition is not the same as knowing that the proposition is true. (We might speak of “knowing what a proposition means” and “understanding that a proposition is true”; but by this we really mean “understanding a proposition” and “knowing that a proposition is true” respectively.)

So the distinction between understanding and knowing seems like it can be maintained. And thus it is not tautological to claim that there are some propositions such that to understand the meaning of that proposition will give knowledge that the proposition is true or false.